“The big thing it allows me to do is that it makes me [a manufacturer] under the law—everything that manufacturers are allowed to do,” he told Ars. “I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport.”

Wilson and his colleagues have been making prototypes of guns for months now. Most recently, the group demonstrated an AR-15 semi-automatic, which is allowed under American law without a license. The legal difference now is that Wilson can sell and distribute the guns he makes.

Earlier this month Wilson told Ars that he had submitted the application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (a division of the Department of Justice) back in October 2012. The process can take as little as 60 days, but in this case it took around six months.

Currently, Wilson said he will not actually begin manufacturing and selling guns until he receives an “add-on” to his FFL, known as a Class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT), as licensed under federal law (PDF). This would allow him to manufacture and deal a broader range of firearms under the National Firearms Act. The Class 2 SOT would grant Wilson the ability to manufacture, for example, a fully-automatic rifle. Wilson applied for the SOT on Saturday and expects to receive approval within a few weeks.

As a gun dealer, Wilson will also be required to keep records on all the guns he makes and sells. The group already takes in thousands of dollars monthly in donations. But with the SOT, Wilson said the group can begin selling guns to offset some of the group’s costs for printers and materials.

“In a way it's like we're just beginning—I'm not going to begin until we have that SOT,” he said. “[We’re going to] sell some of the stuff we've already made. We’ll probably make some stuff to sell and that will be a better way of covering the prototyping.”

Right now, it nothing more than a dubious advantage to sell guns in the US. I highly doubt that 3D printed guns are going to have any advantage over other methods of manufacture. He could sell the 3D plans for printing them (providing he has permission to sell that copyright), but even then the 3rd party 3D printer would need a licence to sell the printed gun on again.

Bit of much ado about nothing at this point i think ? Not that it won't potentially get very interesting very soon.

Agreed. They have to be made out of 3d-printable materials so they're unlikely to remain functional for many firings and if they start to warp or crack, they could be dangerous to their users.

You watch far too much shitty tv if you think you're going to compassion yourself out of getting murdered.

I don't watch any TV.

Maybe that's why I don't assume someone is going to kill me?

It seems like you're trying very hard to imply that individual lawful gun ownership is an actual danger to life while simultaneously ridiculing people for assuming that a criminal entry made into somebody's home is a danger. You want to deprive those exercising passive ownership of an object of their individual liberties for nothing more than ownership of an object, while excoriating a person for being prepared to do the same thing to a home invader -- somebody committing an active and inherently violent act. If you're going to apply a certain logic to one thing, you need to apply it consistently to the other. Deprival of liberty requires an individual justification, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

As a purely practical matter: what would you suppose is the risk of any particular gun owner killing an innocent person versus the chances of somebody who is breaking into one's occupied home killing the occupant? Who here is trying the hardest to prop up the most daft argument?

How does this process compare to "classic" gun-making? Can they make 10x as many guns in a similar period of time?

this is a small part of a larger story.

so its not really about the speed of manufacture, the group wants to open source manufacturing so anyone can download a torrent file and print their own guns at home.

maybe you can't exactly do this today with a small budget, but i'm sure soon it will be doable.

Oh Gawd. The plots of a hundred slasher movies are now ruined. 'Omg Omg Freddie has a weird hand slashy thing and he's going to get us all.''Hah, I'll see his weird hand slashy thing and raise him a BFG! Just a sec - Ctrl P, Ctrl P...!' (Printed from my iPhone).

I'm guessing that the vague generalities surrounding the "right to bear arms" will become a thing of the past, and the group will find restrictions on these printed weapons that they can live with -- in the spirit of cooperation with opponents, of course, and not because deep pockets are being threatened.

If the NRA were to take that position, then the NRA's members would just jump ship and form a new advocacy organization. You can take whatever cynical "follow the money" opinion that you want about the NRA (and maybe you're even correct; I have no idea) but the membership has a simpler agenda: they just want guns.If the NRA goes anti-gun-printing, then they NRA will soon be spoken of, among certain crowds, as being just another homosexual jewish left-wing pornographer hippie negro big-gummint yankee evolutionist gun-seizing pedophile immigrant-tolerating cousin-marriage-prohibitionist commie wine-cooler-drinking educated nascar-hating unamerican conspiracy. (Sorry, I ran out of cliche redneck-derogatory terms there, but maybe someone else can write a longer sentence. At a minimum I'm sure there's plenty more room for racists epithets...)

I'm guessing that the vague generalities surrounding the "right to bear arms" will become a thing of the past, and the group will find restrictions on these printed weapons that they can live with -- in the spirit of cooperation with opponents, of course, and not because deep pockets are being threatened.

If the NRA were to take that position, then the NRA's members would just jump ship and form a new advocacy organization. You can take whatever cynical "follow the money" opinion that you want about the NRA (and maybe you're even correct; I have no idea) but the membership has a simpler agenda: they just want guns.If the NRA goes anti-gun-printing, then they NRA will soon be spoken of, among certain crowds, as being just another homosexual jewish left-wing pornographer hippie negro big-gummint yankee evolutionist gun-seizing pedophile immigrant-tolerating cousin-marriage-prohibitionist commie wine-cooler-drinking educated nascar-hating unamerican conspiracy. (Sorry, I ran out of cliche redneck-derogatory terms there, but maybe someone else can write a longer sentence. At a minimum I'm sure there's plenty more room for racists epithets...)

Sorry to clue you in here, but people who want guns, want guns that won't explode and kill you while using it.

More, cheaper, guns available to all-and-sundry that aren't readily detectable by many conventional methods? Not to mention that now that it's a proven technology, there will be folks 3d-printing guns in the shape of anything and everything that could be made out of plastic.

The interests of these gun manufacturers aligns more closely with our constitutional rights than the interests of anti-gun groups do. Change the constitution if you don't like our rights.

Depending on how you read the US constitution it could merely grant the right to own guns to the national guard.

The reading of the second amendment has been debated since it was written - it's relatively recently that SCOTUS settled on the individual rights model (as opposed to collective rights - that people can form a militia and bear arms in that particular context).

I'd argue for dialing back the level of guns that are legal, except that most of the gun violence in the country is already done with plain old pistols, which are about the weakest firearm you can get with modern technology (Flintlocks, etc are inferior, but also horribly out of date).

On the other hand, there's just no good reason for a random civilian to own a (functional) GAU-8 Avenger - so there's definitely some level of restriction that should exist (Expense aside, I don't think there's any reason someone needs a gun that can shred a tank).

I considered that. But clearly that isn't a good gun to commit crimes with. So why not?

It's basically hyperbole - pointing out the extreme end of firepower that exists only for tearing apart armies. The kind of gun that can't be used for anything except mayhem and destruction (admittedly, fairly focused destruction, but still destruction). I don't know that banning the GAU-8 in particular would do much good since basically nobody is going to use it, but at the same time there's no real use for it in defensive applications.

I dunno. It's mostly just to say that there are some guns I don't think we want ANYONE carrying around (or in this case, mounting on a truck).

On a different note, I really don't get why my last comment was downvoted. My first guess is that I pointed out that the current interpretation of the second amendment is not how it was interpreted when it was passed.

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

Someone who means to kill you already has significant tactical advantage by that very fact alone. They have the initiative and possibly the element of surprise. Retreat is, frankly, advisable if possible, even if you do have a gun.

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

'Shall not be infringed' is pretty certain. Once the second amendment goes, the first won't be far behind. The US is a country in which the government has experimented on the civilian population in the past, a fact many anti-gun people probably don't know.

The government is not your friend. The second exists for a very specific reason.

If you only think that your should treat people as, you know, people when the law demands it then I'm done trying to respect your position.

Perhaps this is the point where I decide a person no longer deserves compassion - when they are entirely without compassion themselves?

You seem to take it for granted that your attitudes and opinions concerning "people" and what they do or don't deserve are non-debatable. I just read through the last four pages of posts and decided that you're you're basing your posts on naive reasoning. You don't know the topics, you haven't thought about them that much, and your opinions are correspondingly poorly reasoned.

Here are my opinions, based on twenty-five years of hiring homeless people who need help and who have, on occasion, robbed me. I recognize that they're my opinions, but I have the strong impression that mine are based on more knowledge and experience and time spent reasoning than yours.

1. If someone breaks into my house to take my stuff, if the law didn't frown on it, I'd just as soon shoot them and feel some compassion as I'm kicking the dirt in over them in my backyard. Yes, this person received a lousy upbringing and made some poor and probably pardonable choices. At the point when he or she breaks into my house, it's my choice to bestow compassion or not, depending on my mood and how annoyed I'm feeling at having my stuff stolen. If he's threatening me, the decision was made before he arrived, and I'll reserve my compassion until after he's no longer a threat.

2. Corollary to #1: There are lots of Homo sapiens in the world. They are not all "human". Not all of them are automatically worth keeping. Who should judge? I reserve that privilege if one's in my house without my permission.

3. Gun ownership was inserted into the US constitution not for sport hunting but in case the people of the US should ever need to keep their government in check. Whether or not you agree with the additions that have been made to the executive branch's list of powers in the past several years, it is most unwise to advocate giving up our last check because you think it's inconceivable that we could ever use it. More succinctly, think long and hard before you volunteer to give up any constitutional right. You're probably being shortsighted.

4. Philosophies and ideologies have their places in the world, but occasionally they conflict and collide with reality. You have the right to believe whatever you like. At some point, though, the Two-by-Four of Life, in the form of global warming or a guy beating the crap out of you or some other life-threatening situation, may attempt to instill new lessons into your brain. It's better to listen and learn quickly.

5. There are many cogent and well-reasoned explanations regarding the origins of violence (including mass murders) in the United States that do not originate in gun ownership. I, for one, believe that our problems are more fundamental, and that we would be poorly served by getting rid of guns, even if it were easily done, rather than examining the real roots of our problems.

As an example, look at the decline of real income per household since 1980. It now requires two parents to make as much real income as one parent made in 1980. How has this change impacted the psychological health of both parents and children, and our society as a whole? Would the removal of guns address the recent absence of social and psychological support structures?

For your own part, BCT, I would suggest that you both spend some time around homeless people who occasionally steal to fund their addictions and buy yourself a weapon and learn how to use it. At that point, you'll have a more-informed opinion.

The interests of these gun manufacturers aligns more closely with our constitutional rights than the interests of anti-gun groups do. Change the constitution if you don't like our rights.

Depending on how you read the US constitution it could merely grant the right to own guns to the national guard.

The reading of the second amendment has been debated since it was written - it's relatively recently that SCOTUS settled on the individual rights model (as opposed to collective rights - that people can form a militia and bear arms in that particular context).

I'd argue for dialing back the level of guns that are legal, except that most of the gun violence in the country is already done with plain old pistols, which are about the weakest firearm you can get with modern technology (Flintlocks, etc are inferior, but also horribly out of date).

On the other hand, there's just no good reason for a random civilian to own a (functional) GAU-8 Avenger - so there's definitely some level of restriction that should exist (Expense aside, I don't think there's any reason someone needs a gun that can shred a tank).

I considered that. But clearly that isn't a good gun to commit crimes with. So why not?

It's basically hyperbole - pointing out the extreme end of firepower that exists only for tearing apart armies. The kind of gun that can't be used for anything except mayhem and destruction (admittedly, fairly focused destruction, but still destruction). I don't know that banning the GAU-8 in particular would do much good since basically nobody is going to use it, but at the same time there's no real use for it in defensive applications.

I dunno. It's mostly just to say that there are some guns I don't think we want ANYONE carrying around (or in this case, mounting on a truck).

On a different note, I really don't get why my last comment was downvoted. My first guess is that I pointed out that the current interpretation of the second amendment is not how it was interpreted when it was passed.

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

In my opinion, there is no higher word in the US than the Constitution. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but you do have to abide by it. You can always try to change it. If God were to show up and make an appearance and try to do un-Constitutional things I'd say the same thing to him/her/it.

I have weak points to make in favor of private GAU/8 ownership. Most of them revolve around "it would be awesome!"

The government is not your friend. The second exists for a very specific reason.

I happen to believe that the government is, overall, my friend. But governments are composed of many individuals, and not everybody who works for the government is my friend. Not every decision that is made by someone who works for the government is a good one. And not every decision that is made by a democracy is farsighted.

The Press has been called the fourth branch of US democracy, because the (hopefully well-informed) People are the fourth check and balance. Without a well-armed populace, ready with weapons, painted faces and sharpened teeth, there is no fourth check.

Personally, if it gets to the "give me liberty or give me death" stage again, my money is on the people with the tanks, no matter how many plastic guns are floating around out there.

There is about 2.4 million people in the military, including reservists. There is 130 million Americans with guns. Tanks are nice, but better guns doesn't make it an equal fight. The British were better trained, had a much bigger arsenal, and much more men, and it didn't turn out great for them. Not only that, but me and many of my fellow guardsmen would never follow through with an unconstitutional order. Which we have every right to disobey.

This is great news. It's fantastic to see how far these 3D printers have come!

Also, all you people turning this into a gun debate, Guns kill such a small amount of our population, it shouldn't even be on the governments agenda. If they really wanted to stop crime/violence, they'd focus more on legalizing/regulating drugs, and automated cars/Breathalyzer in all cars.

...On a different note, I really don't get why my last comment was downvoted. My first guess is that I pointed out that the current interpretation of the second amendment is not how it was interpreted when it was passed.

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

This is true that the constitution's amendments have been interpreted in various ways over the years (It's my personal opinion that both "sides," in this instance, are taking liberties based on personal agenda. I also believe that the "anti-gun side" does it far more and really would do well to try to actually change the amendment instead of wasting time with nonsensical interpretations that will just eventually get reversed again.)

Many state constitutions further interpret the Second Amendment very explicitly as an individual right (the states that you'd think would be these "militias" and "national guards" everyone tries to replace "people" with in their "interpretations.) And that, my friends, is why states like CA can make restrictions on things like mag-capacities and such; because it's up to the state as long as the right to bear arms is not infringed in a global sense. (One can still possess "state-approved" firearms within such a state.)

(BTW: I didn't downvote or upvote your comment. I'm not concerned about such things personally.)

I think that Cody Wilson got the FFL purely to protect himself against any potential contravention to the law. Fair enough while he's doing his R&D for the printed lower. It has attracted a lot of attention, no doubt the government, and i would be highly suspicious that they'd now, let him get away with anything; so i think this is just him minding his p's and q's, because any honest mistake could result in jail.

As for BCT's comments, it's obvious that BCT has decided that the only purpose firearms have is to kill. It's a completely flippant outlook, because, while a lot of people have firearms to defend themselves, a lot of people aren't on some sort of bloodlust looking to kill someone. If the only purpose firearms have is to kill, then why do police have them? Especially when they have no duty to protect other people...

I'm a gun owner in Australia, and our laws prohibit ordinary members of the public, from having firearms for the purpose of self defence. With that said, police and security guards aren't prohibited from having firearms to protect people and property (and it's arguable that it is only for the wealthy). My firearms are purely used for hunting and target shooting. No killing (of people) is involved there.

I think the gun violence in the USA is a symptom of a greater violence problem. Criminologists have long argued this point, there is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun violence, but it continually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes).

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

'Shall not be infringed' is pretty certain. Once the second amendment goes, the first won't be far behind. The US is a country in which the government has experimented on the civilian population in the past, a fact many anti-gun people probably don't know.

The government is not your friend. The second exists for a very specific reason.

What I can never understand about the "we need our guns to fight the gubbmint" people, is what exactly is it going to take? When are you going to get up off your arses and do it? You have had a succession of shitty governments over the last decade or more that have invaded other countries, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, sent another generation of your children overseas to die in pointless wars, siphoned off billions to their mates via military spending contracts, put your nation in unprecedented debt, enacted draconian legislation like the patriot act that disregards these very rights that you claim to have, and created another generation of hostility from countries full of people on the other side of the planet.

How bad does it have to get before you pick up your guns and round up your posse and do something about it? People using this argument always talk a good game about their constitutional right to live in a society where even the smallest argument can turn deadly, but the reality is that they sit at home metaphorically clutching their guns, living in fear waiting for a home invasion, and that won't ever change no matter what the government does. Your society is irredeemably screwed - too many idiots have guns and they are too freely available to criminals, this makes you feel so scared that you need guns to feel safer, and now it's too late to remove them from society. You are trapped in this perpetual cycle of idiocy. And now we end up with the twisted idea that people can protect themselves by enabling them to print and manufacture even more guns. Good luck with that.

Forget the arguments about constitutional rights that were written in an age when a man might have had a single shot musket, just like the government soldiers. You and your posse can roll up to the white house with your machine guns and rifles and the rest of the world will watch in horror as you are all murdered by a guy in an apache or a tank or a fighter plane. The reality is that you live in a culture of fear and you have your guns because they make you feel tougher and safer. While I find that incredibly sad I can understand it. But I can see straight through the constitutional right to fight the government BS.

If you only think that your should treat people as, you know, people when the law demands it then I'm done trying to respect your position.

You have yet to show respect for anyone's position, intellectual capability, education, or person.

Even where I may have admitted someone had made a valid point (rare though it may have been)?

Feel free to add yourself to the list of people who scan posts and assume the position of others based on nothing other than tone for whom I have no respect though.

No, I won't. I've read your posts, and found them lacking in logic, morality, or any attempt to actually understand another's argument.

The fact that you may or may not have any respect for me is inconsequential. If you'd evinced any degree of logical thought, attention to another's argument, or actual concern for other people I might have reason to care. But you haven't, so I don't.

Forget the arguments about constitutional rights that were written in an age when a man might have had a single shot musket, just like the government soldiers. You and your posse can roll up to the white house with your machine guns and rifles and the rest of the world will watch in horror as you are all murdered by a guy in an apache or a tank or a fighter plane. The reality is that you live in a culture of fear and you have your guns because they make you feel tougher and safer. While I find that incredibly sad I can understand it. But I can see straight through the constitutional right to fight the government BS.

And another person misses the ability of a popular insurrection to win out against a technologically superior opponent.

Ignoring the assumption that the military would just off and act against the citizens. I know quote a few military personnel (my employer biases towards retired mil, especially Marines, because the owner is a vet himself), and the question has come up. None believed that the military would, if ordered, take such action.

The ability to resist the government is just another reason to protect gun ownership. We're not the ones living in fear, it's the people who can't get past their own fears to see that gun control is an answer to nothing who need to evaluate their lives.

Also, it was written when citizen has muzzle-loading rifles, and the government had those as well as field guns. Anyone with any military history knows that rifles+field guns beats rifles in setpiece warfare any day. The technological disparity is nothing new.

Ignoring the assumption that the military would just off and act against the citizens. I know quote a few military personnel (my employer biases towards retired mil, especially Marines, because the owner is a vet himself), and the question has come up. None believed that the military would, if ordered, take such action.

It is interesting then that the videos released by wikileaks showed that the US military has no objections to firing on innocent - even unarmed - people in other countries, no?

And you have ignored the question that I was mainly interested in. What exactly is it going to take before you all grab your guns and go and unseat your government? All talk, no action.

However many guns this country or its people own, it is not going to prevent us from going down the drain, which we are already doing in terms of available rights/freedoms, available opportunities and available food on the table.

The reason this country still draws people from many parts of the world is because these is empty land to be taken possession of, the old world is anything from 3-12 times more densely populated. The gun-bearers and constitution mongers will win the battle for only so long. Eventually the hordes will prevail, especially because power projection is not about the number of guns or nukes you have, it is about the economy. And the economic center of gravity of the world will tip towards the old world, especially because the Chinese have already learned the trick, and the Indians are on the path to do so.

Unless we as a nation start seeing this, and focus on the importance of hard work, tangible returns and a reasonable degrees of compassion and morality - the writing will remain on the wall and become clearer as the decades roll by, we will become a has-been nation.

I don't get all the people who insist the constitution can only be read one way, considering how many cases there are of interpretations changing over the years, the fact that it can be changed anyways (I swear, some people sound like the constitution is the immutable word of god), etc.

'Shall not be infringed' is pretty certain. Once the second amendment goes, the first won't be far behind. The US is a country in which the government has experimented on the civilian population in the past, a fact many anti-gun people probably don't know.

The government is not your friend. The second exists for a very specific reason.

What I can never understand about the "we need our guns to fight the gubbmint" people, is what exactly is it going to take? When are you going to get up off your arses and do it? You have had a succession of shitty governments over the last decade or more that have invaded other countries, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, sent another generation of your children overseas to die in pointless wars, siphoned off billions to their mates via military spending contracts, put your nation in unprecedented debt, enacted draconian legislation like the patriot act that disregards these very rights that you claim to have, and created another generation of hostility from countries full of people on the other side of the planet.

How bad does it have to get before you pick up your guns and round up your posse and do something about it? People using this argument always talk a good game about their constitutional right to live in a society where even the smallest argument can turn deadly, but the reality is that they sit at home metaphorically clutching their guns, living in fear waiting for a home invasion, and that won't ever change no matter what the government does. Your society is irredeemably screwed - too many idiots have guns and they are too freely available to criminals, this makes you feel so scared that you need guns to feel safer, and now it's too late to remove them from society. You are trapped in this perpetual cycle of idiocy. And now we end up with the twisted idea that people can protect themselves by enabling them to print and manufacture even more guns. Good luck with that.

Forget the arguments about constitutional rights that were written in an age when a man might have had a single shot musket, just like the government soldiers. You and your posse can roll up to the white house with your machine guns and rifles and the rest of the world will watch in horror as you are all murdered by a guy in an apache or a tank or a fighter plane. The reality is that you live in a culture of fear and you have your guns because they make you feel tougher and safer. While I find that incredibly sad I can understand it. But I can see straight through the constitutional right to fight the government BS.

As much as people complain about the US Government, most of it is simple griping. By and large, the government isn't particularly corrupt, most people have plenty to eat, and a place to live. You don't fear that going to jail is going to require a bribe to come out alive. You aren't extorted at checkpoints because local cops want some cash.

The government isn't a junta, a military dictatorship, a theocracy, or any of the overtly harmful regimes out there.

If it comes to the point that the people need to rise up, we won't need the second amendment, because you cannot stop a population that refuses to be oppressed. We won't need the protections of the Constitution, because if it comes time to overthrow the government, no document will protect us.

Ignoring the assumption that the military would just off and act against the citizens. I know quote a few military personnel (my employer biases towards retired mil, especially Marines, because the owner is a vet himself), and the question has come up. None believed that the military would, if ordered, take such action.

It is interesting then that the videos released by wikileaks showed that the US military has no objections to firing on innocent - even unarmed - people in other countries, no?

And you have ignored the question that I was mainly interested in. What exactly is it going to take before you all grab your guns and go and unseat your government? All talk, no action.

It should seem pretty obvious that, while those things you previously mentioned (pointless wars etc.) are indeed important, that the "taking up of arms against ones gov't" would occur if said gov't turned on teh people.

I could literally make your arguments for you. All you people babble the same nonsense like you get it out of a playbook for the mentally challenged liberal.

A quick google reveals that you live in the UK, home to the most surveillance cameras in the WORLD. I've read statistics that have you at 1% of the world's population and 20% of it's CCTV Cameras. You DARE talk about 'living in fear'? Also quite funny that you're insulting gun ownership in the very country that won its independence from you before you all started 'cowering' behind your CCTV cameras.

Your tank and plane argument is stupid for this reason: While some of the government forces would indeed wage war on the populace as directed, not all would. We would indeed have planes and tanks on our side too. The stupidity of your argument extends from that defeatist attitude so prevalent in the liberal mindset. That you can't help yourself. That you're useless in the face of opposition and someone else's power.

I suggest you get off your high horse and go check some facts. Your country (you know, the one without guns) has FAR MORE violent crime than the US does. You're literally the gutter of Europe in violent crime, followed by France.

What always amuses me is that in America there are over 300 million firearms floating around. And, if you read the blog comments anytime the topic has any bearing on firearms, all Americans are expert shots, quite capable of taking out any armed attacker, and always travel around with their loaded firearm on their person just waiting for the occasion to use it. Yet, in all of the recent gun related disasters NOT ONE of these self-proclaimed experts was able to save any lives... So, the scoreboard reads Nutjobs with guns, many recent victims killed; self-proclaimed American gun experts, 0.

I was even more amused at the NRA's answer to the recent (Sandy Hook Elementary school, yes?) massacre - have armed guards at every school. Yet, if memory serves, wasn't there an armed guard (A trained police office no less) on duty at Columbine High School when that massacre happened? Did he do any good? Laugh a minute, you guys are... All those dead children and NOT ONE of you has ever done anything about it.

Spot on alohadave. That's exactly the point. Its a bunch of Sunday Rambos sitting at home bleating about their constitutional right to have guns and fight the evil government but the reality is things are never going to be bad enough for them to actually get up and do anything.

Q1DM6 wrote:

I could literally make your arguments for you. All you people babble the same nonsense like you get it out of a playbook for the mentally challenged liberal.

Ah, you subscribe to the simple black and white, liberal vs conservative, worldview. I've never really understood that point of view myself, as I have always found people and the world to be a far more complex place. But good for you. I was going to respond in detail but seeing as your rant is mostly based on the erroneous assumption that I live in the UK, that would be rather pointless. How embarrassing for you.

What always amuses me is that in America there are over 300 million firearms floating around. And, if you read the blog comments anytime the topic has any bearing on firearms, all Americans are expert shots, quite capable of taking out any armed attacker, and always travel around with their loaded firearm on their person just waiting for the occasion to use it. Yet, in all of the recent gun related disasters NOT ONE of these self-proclaimed experts was able to save any lives... So, the scoreboard reads Nutjobs with guns, many recent victims killed; self-proclaimed American gun experts, 0.

I was even more amused at the NRA's answer to the recent (Sandy Hook Elementary school, yes?) massacre - have armed guards at every school. Yet, if memory serves, wasn't there an armed guard (A trained police office no less) on duty at Columbine High School when that massacre happened? Did he do any good? Laugh a minute, you guys are... All those dead children and NOT ONE of you has ever done anything about it.

Yes, because the average citizen is allowed to carry firearms into a school, right? Can your argument get dumber?

Spot on alohadave. That's exactly the point. Its a bunch of Sunday Rambos sitting at home bleating about their constitutional right to have guns and fight the evil government but the reality is things are never going to be bad enough for them to actually get up and do anything.

Q1DM6 wrote:

I could literally make your arguments for you. All you people babble the same nonsense like you get it out of a playbook for the mentally challenged liberal.

Ah, you subscribe to the simple black and white, liberal vs conservative, worldview. I've never really understood that point of view myself, as I have always found people and the world to be a far more complex place. But good for you. I was going to respond in detail but seeing as your rant is mostly based on the erroneous assumption that I live in the UK, that would be rather pointless. How embarrassing for you.

Please, still explain why there's FAR MORE violent crime in the countries where the people aren't allowed guns.

It should seem pretty obvious that, while those things you previously mentioned (pointless wars etc.) are indeed important, that the "taking up of arms against ones gov't" would occur if said gov't turned on teh people.

Agreed. However does condemning your country to economic disaster, sending your youth to the other side of the world to die, enacting the patriot act etc not count as turning on the people? Where do you draw the line? When the soldiers are outside shooting at people?

Wait till they figure out these are the kinds of guns you can walk through a metal detector.

Shavano wrote:

Agreed. They have to be made out of 3d-printable materials so they're unlikely to remain functional for many firings and if they start to warp or crack, they could be dangerous to their users.

There are ceramic materials stronger than steel that can be used to make pistols. With similarly constructed ammo, those would likely get through a detector. They are very expensive and hard to make as moldings or extrusions.

If some idiot prints a gun out of plastic and attempts to fire it past its point of tolerance, he deserves to clean himself out of the gene pool. I just hope he doesn't take anybody else with him.

Please, still explain why there's FAR MORE violent crime in the countries where the people aren't allowed guns.

Looking at that graph there is no definition of what a "crime" is and there is nothing on that page that says anything about the crimes being violent. So it clearly does not support what you are trying to say.

Apart from that one post I'm not going to engage in a morbid and ultimately pointless dick waving contest about which country has the most crime or murders. Just answer the question, hypothetically speaking what would it take before you backed your words up with action and fought your own government with your guns that you apparently keep for that very purpose?

Spot on alohadave. That's exactly the point. Its a bunch of Sunday Rambos sitting at home bleating about their constitutional right to have guns and fight the evil government but the reality is things are never going to be bad enough for them to actually get up and do anything.

I won't go that far. As I said, most people are reasonably comfortable in their lives, but don't think that if things got really bad (and it would probably take a lot), that people wouldn't rise up.

Please, still explain why there's FAR MORE violent crime in the countries where the people aren't allowed guns.

Looking at that graph there is no definition of what a "crime" is and there is nothing on that page that says anything about the crimes being violent. So it clearly does not support what you are trying to say.

Apart from that one post I'm not going to engage in a morbid and ultimately pointless dick waving contest about which country has the most crime or murders. Just answer the question, hypothetically speaking what would it take before you backed your words up with action and fought your own government with your guns that you apparently keep for that very purpose?

You know why you're not going to engage in it? Because I looked, and realized you're from Australia, not the UK. Yes, Australia, where you banned your guns and your assaults and rapes skyrocketed. You don't want to get into a dick waving contest about FACTS and would rather structure your argument around hypotheticals.

When we feel the need to put our government back on track you'll hear about it all over the world, so no need to worry. Until that day we retain the right to be able to do so because we aren't stupid enough to let our government disarm us.

When we feel the need to put our government back on track you'll hear about it all over the world, so no need to worry. Until that day we retain the right to be able to do so because we aren't stupid enough to let our government disarm us.

I'll take that as confirmation of my impression that you haven't thought about it, have no idea, and cling to the "constitutional right" argument as a clutch to justify your guns. Its ok, admit it, you need them because you fear being attacked by someone else with a gun. This anti-governemtn schtick is absurd.

Please, still explain why there's FAR MORE violent crime in the countries where the people aren't allowed guns.

Looking at that graph there is no definition of what a "crime" is and there is nothing on that page that says anything about the crimes being violent. So it clearly does not support what you are trying to say.

Apart from that one post I'm not going to engage in a morbid and ultimately pointless dick waving contest about which country has the most crime or murders. Just answer the question, hypothetically speaking what would it take before you backed your words up with action and fought your own government with your guns that you apparently keep for that very purpose?

That's just cherry picking data to suit your agenda. If you want to clean up 'gun crime' exclusively then you might look at disarmament (even though it hasn't worked anywhere, ever, UK for instance, the handgun crime rate rose after the handgun ban) but if you want to deal with all crime, then, you might want to ask whether the murder rate from melee weapons symptomatic of a gun problem?

Russia has very little gun crime, but murder rate around 3 times higher than the USA.

All these statistics are meaningless, they don't really tell you anything, except that there's no strong correlation with number of guns and gun crime.